Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

MoneySense has just ranked Vancouver as the worst city in Canada in terms of the affordability of housing. This may surprise some, especially considering the city's continually high global rankings in terms of livability in magazines such as The Economist.
One of the main reasons MoneySense's statistics are different is the fact that many of the others don't look at such factors as the cost of housing, unemployment and the overall cost of living. Instead of merely approaching the issue from the idealistic, outsider's angle of beauty, lack of pollution and enough parks and nature to keep any yoga-pants-wearing granola happy, MoneySense has looked at things from an insider's point of view. The city looks dandy in the photos -- but what about statistics concerning the people who already live and (don't) have jobs here?
And so the question that occurs to me is: Livable for who? Surely, for those who make a lot of money. But Vancouver also ranks 109 out of 179 in unemployment, putting the city well into the jobless half of the country. How livable can Vancouver be when there is nowhere affordable to live?
Perhaps foreign investment from people who continually read reports about Vancouver being the most livable city on the planet is part of the problem. Out of towners often buy property at high prices because ratings in The Economist and others ensure it's a good investment. Prices continue to climb as a result, and lower income Vancouverites become less capable of paying the price for a home.
The phenomenon is nothing new, of course. Trends and international popularity have contributed in the past to make such places as Tokyo, much of New York, and even central Paris utterly unaffordable for the majority of their residents. Rio de Janeiro, one of the next hosts of the Summer Olympics, has gone through enormous housing problems. As foreign and out-of-city investment continued to inflate property prices, many lower income families have been forced to live in illegally constructed shantytowns often lacking in access to water and basic infrastructure.
MoneySense rates Vancouver as having the highest house prices as well as being the city in which it takes the most time for an average income-earning family to buy a home. Some of the reason that statistics have changed from MoneySense's previous year is the fact that this year's survey has split the Lower Mainland up, cutting the Vancouver Metropolitan Area off from North Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey and others. The result is that Vancouver fell from an overall rating of 6 to 29.
In perhaps not as much of a surprise, Vancouver also rates as the city with the highest crime severity, coming in well above Toronto, Montreal and even two above Surrey. The latter's overall crime rate is still higher, however.
Needless to say, Vancouver also rates in the top twenty worse cities in Canada for annual precipitation. It rates as the second to lowest city for days below zero, however. Of course, comparing the weather of cities in Canada has always been a question of which is the least bad...
Good or bad, however, one thing is certain. Vancouver is expensive. Too expensive. If it can't even rate in the top ten best places to live in Canada, how can it be the most livable city in the world? Photo by Uncle Buddha in the BR Flickr Pool.

I wonder also Swan Dive, why you stay in a place you find so distasteful? Your posts are always doom and gloom on anything to do with Vancouver.

As far as that article goes ..

MoneySense rates Vancouver as having the highest house prices as well as being the city in which it takes the most time for an average income-earning family to buy a home. Some of the reason that statistics have changed from MoneySense's previous year is the fact that this year's survey has split the Lower Mainland up, cutting the Vancouver Metropolitan Area off from North Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey and others. The result is that Vancouver fell from an overall rating of 6 to 29.

Of course the housing expense ratio is going to rise if you split the Lower Mainland up according to the article and focus solely on one of the most expensive areas of the city.

Is the article bent on splitting all cities in Canada in the same manner?

Also, what are we comparing it to .. probably only two other cities in Canada .. Montreal and Toronto?

I came in '78 for sailboat racing and stayed for the employed, hiking boot owning, stickshift driving ladies of the outdoors. And have absolutely no idea where they are now! Vancouver has a ten year cycle; if you like a city that's going to be different in a decade, this is the place. It's not Emo.

Finally a ranking that makes some sense! I don't call a city with such a small job market and mediocre wage along with New York -like housing price "most livable", no matter how beautiful it is. You can't just eat raw fish from the pacific and live in the mountains, can you.

To those who like making argument such as "since you don't like it, why are you staying", I'd say "cheap shots!" There are millions of people who hate the cities they are living in, but moving may not be an easy option because you have many other factors to consider: job, family, legal issues, friends etc.

Plus, the OP simply points out ONE ranking that says Vancouver is not as livable as many claim, what's with all this sarcasm? You guys simply can't handle the fact that some may not find vancouver attractive and have to attack him?

And Cornerguy, where exactly did you see him say vancouver is a "craphole"? He quoted an article using statistical facts about Vancouver, and from a different yet pragmatic perspective, points out rather objectively that Vancouver's high unemploymentm high crime rate and high housing price may make the city less livable as it appears to be, may I ask what's wrong with that? I mean, aren't people still allowed to dislike Vancouver?

You yourself imagined an argument where others didn't even go anything close to and attacked with strong scarcasm, and that's what is funny. Basically from my obervation your sharpest weapon is whenever someone says he doesn't like certain aspect of a city you happen to like, you would simply say "why don't you leave?" People have families, careers, and friends and it is not like leaving a city permanently is as easy as booking a flight ticket!

Also, what are we comparing it to .. probably only two other cities in Canada .. Montreal and Toronto?

Are there other real onces in Canada? All others can be described as "towns" in my opinion.
Maybe just like -20C winters are still considered as "mild climate", Canada has different definition of "city" from the rest of the world as well.

Are there other real onces in Canada? All others can be described as "towns" in my opinion.
Maybe just like -20C winters are still considered as "mild climate", Canada has different definition of "city" from the rest of the world as well.

Just curious kkgg and Swan Dive, where's the city most livable in your opinions? remember, we're talking about little 'ol Canada here.

Kkgg, that didn't sound like sarcasm so much as just a tired reaction to the constant negative spin on anything to do with Vancouver from the same naysayers.

I can live with the fact some don't care for Vancouver. It is a major city with all the issues that go with that, and then some.

Also a city situated in a spectacular setting. For some that makes up for all of it's shortfalls.

We get by now, that neither yourself or Swan Dive fall into the latter. that's all.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.